“It’s very important to teach the controversies,” Jarold Graff, University of Illinois; I think that this mindset is very important for educators to have. Education is not black and white, and there most definitely IS a place for politics in education. The types of citizenship education I received from grade K-12 was for the most part, mainly personally responsible citizenship education. We were taught, especially at an older age that it is important that we either go to post secondary or get a job, vote, pay taxes, and just be a generally responsible citizen. The way that we were taught this stuff was through mostly verbal teachings. We were also taught how to be Participatory citizens, because each year at my High School (Thom Collegiate), we held a “beat cancer” fundraiser where all of the proceeds would go towards charities that helped families affected by cancer. We would typically raise quite a bit of money, from students and teachers selling things, having activities, contests, and donating all of the proceeds. This was by far our proudest accomplishment each year, we typically raised around $10,000 which was huge since we were such a small school. The instruction in citizenship education teaches students about the culture of their community, about expectations, and responsibilities. This is important because if a student is unfamiliar about what is expected of them as a citizen, this will teach them the importance of being self aware and responsible. I think that the goal of this is to create students who are going to make the lives of government workers, and politicians easier. If everyone is taught responsibility, then it will make the jobs of government officials easier.

The curriculums take on sex ed, and health class are without a doubt normalizing heterosexual relationships, and cis gendered students, while at the same time alienating students who do not fit into this “norm.” Sex education focuses on the anatomy and precautions of straight sex, but fails to explain the precautionary steps for safe sex for queer couples, or normalize asexual people. The school system talks about condoms in order to protect against pregnancy and STI’s however, even with LGBTQ+ couples, there are still risks around STI’s that are often ignored, which alienates and does not educate students who are not straight. The curriculum also fails to represent bisexual students, which is ignoring the fact that sexuality is a spectrum and not a black or white concept. No person is 100% straight nor 100% gay, and as educators we have to explain to students that it is normal to feel attraction towards both genders, and feel it in different ways. Someone may feel physical attraction towards men, but emotional attraction towards women, and that is normal, and it will change and fluctuate throughout life. Focusing on health class, the curriculum teaches students what to expect during puberty, however it is not inclusive. Health class often focuses on a cis gendered “normal student,” that teaches biological boys about what to expect, and in a separate room teaches biological girls about what to expect. Health class should be an open conversation that teaches everyone the same thing in one classroom; of course this may make it more awkward for the students, however it will create a safe space for honest dialogue. Traditionally when students are separated by gender, it is to teach them only what will apply to them, however transgendered students will be left out of this discussion, as well as anyone who is seen as biologically “different,” such as intersex people, which is very common and often ignored. Every student deserves the right to learn about their body without having to request it, no matter if they are transgender, non-binary, cis-gender, or intersex.

In my classroom I am going to ensure that every student feels that they are included and represented in their education. Education at times will be confusing and not always accepted by everyone, however as society changes, so does education. Society’s understandings have changed since the 1960’s, but sadly education has barely. Every student should feel normalized, sex education needs to educate students around straight sexual health, gay sexual health, asexuality, and any other “taboo topics.” As well as health education needs to educate students about the differences in every body, and normalize non binary, transgender and intersex bodies. We need to ensure that they recognize that gender and sex are two very different things, and how to respect peoples pronouns. These are topics that are very prominent in society, and students have to learn about it at some point, however if these things are taught while students are younger, they will grow up viewing these things as normal. Teachers must provide ALL students with care, rather than ignoring the notion around sexuality. A student should feel free and comfortable to talk about and ask questions about anything, especially regarding sexuality and gender. Students may not be allowed, or feel comfortable to talk about it at home, which is often their only other option for learning the truth around these topics; so if we do not teach it in our classrooms, then I believe that we are truly failing our students.

“A History of Education” by Painter references that every generation and nation of peoples has received education to fit their lifestyles and “careers,” he mentions that “uncivilized” peoples received education that was not much more than physical, he even goes as far as to call them barbaric. This way of thinking is very Euro-centric, assuming that western teachings and education is superior to other cultures. Drilling further the idea that western culture is, in a way, superior. When mentioning the “ranking” of education around the world Painter places Europe and America, after the reformation, as number one. He places Asian and African countries in last place, and does not feel obligated to add any nations who are “uncivilized,” which is pretty safe to assume he is talking about Indigenous cultures, because they have a very traditional way of education that is often discredited by Eurocentric education. The way that Painter talks about “the oriental nations” is very stereotypical, (referring to China, Egypt, Palestine, India, and other places) he mentions that Chinese people are very intelligent, however very “dishonest” and apt to become tyrannical. This is putting all Chinese people in a box based on very limited understanding of the people as a whole. Painter by saying this is giving into propaganda and generalizations. He also says that their idea of education is memorization, rather than developing off of past ideas. Painter talks about education in India by saying that they spend too much time on arithmetic. I do not believe that he meant to see other countries in a negative toxic way, I think that this was just a product of a toxic Euro-centric mindset that was common in this time. The way he sees education in other places ranges from “very bad” to “not horrible but worse than us,” which we now know that there is no right or wrong in education, as it can vary based on many factors. Kumashiro tells a story about a student named M, who was not a traditional “good student,” M had a hard time sitting quietly and following instructions, however during individual activities with more freedom she was very creative. He mentions that teachers are often guilty of having a “perfect student” in mind. We always would love a student who absorbs what we teach, and enjoys how we teach; however this ideology is not realistic. Students are all different, and they should not suffer just because they think differently. According to my previous common sense a “good student,” is somebody who follows instruction well, does all of the required work, and for the most part can understand it easily. This idea around a “good student” is damaging for anybody who learns differently. If a student has a learning disability or an attention deficit disorder, or a student whos first language is not English. This can be damaging for people who think differently in any way. I feel a bit guilty because I believed in this idea of a good student, even though I was never considered one. I was quiet so teachers never had a problem with me, however I was a student who would not do work if I found it pointless. I had to understand the purpose of it in order to see the reason for doing it. The students who are privileged by these expectations are students who are good at memorization, and who are at a cultural or language advantage. The idea of a good student was shaped historically by our Euro-Centric ways of thinking and viewing learning. The article by Painter was written in the late 1800’s and the belief then was that “our” way of learning is better than “their” ways of learning. Its bringing in an us vs. them mindset, which is very toxic to the group who is in the minority in the educational system.

The Tyler Rationale/my experience with schooling.

The Tyler Rationale theory around curriculum was very prominent in my entire time in elementary and high school. Growing up I was never strong in subjects involving math and science. I was taught that math was a class where the teacher would stand at the front of the class and teach us what we needed to know, and then we were sent home with home work to figure out by ourselves, and then tested. I was never a good tester, and I did not understand even very basic math for a lot of my time in elementary school. So I would never get a better grade than a C. As a student this is a very toxic way of learning, because you are taught that testing defines your intelligence. I grew up thinking I was stupid because I did not understand math in the same way that others did. If teachers would have tried to teach me math in a different way I may have had the opportunity to learn it better. When I was in grade 9, I remember a teacher told me he loved the way my brain worked because it was not typical for a student in math. This was a pivotal day for me because it made me realize that I was not dumb, I just was not taught in the way that worked for me. I went on to realize that although I did not understand math in the traditional sense, I was very good at breaking down information to build arguments, and form those into papers. The Tyler Rationale is out dated, and we are luckily moving away from it. The Tyler Rationale teaches students that in order to be considered smart you have to test well, and learn the same as everyone else. As educators we have to ensure that we make every student realize their potential and understand that education is not about testing, and assignments. Education is about attaining information, learning, and building critical thinking. One benefit of the Tyler Rationale is that it ensures that all students within a district have learned the same thing. If all students are taught the same things, using the same strategies, then there will be nothing that can be missed or skipped.

Kumashiro defines common sense as a culturally based idea of everyday norms. Not standing too close to people in an elevator, driving on the right side of the road, wear clothes in public; these are all examples of “common sense.” However common sense varies depending on where you grew up, your culture, and life experience. Kumashiro explains in his article that when he left the United States to teach in Nepal, he quickly learned that the things he did not know were considered common sense to the locals. An example he gave in the text was that he was taught that education was not completely curriculum based, and not all about standardized testing; however the students quickly became frustrated with him because the teachers are supposed to completely stick to the textbook. The students ideas around common sense for teachers was very different from what Kumashiros idea of education was. This example is why it is so important to pay attention to the things that we brush off as “common sense,” if somebody moves to Canada from somewhere that has a different culture/way of life, then their idea of what common sense will be very different from ours. As educators we have to ensure that we do not assume what students “should” or should not know, or believe, but rather try to learn together. If we assume that every student has the same idea of what is considered common sense, then there is always a risk that we could end up leaving a student out, or putting them on the spot. My ideas of common sense around the curriculum and pedagogy are that the curriculum should be outcome based rather than process based. Teachers should be able to have the freedom and flexibility to teach how they find fitting, and adjust the curriculum to fit the types of learners in the class.

This is where I will be posting my blog posts for ECS 203 (Fall 2020)